[graap-wg] asynchronous binding
Toshiyuki Nakata
nakata at mtg.biglobe.ne.jp
Tue Feb 22 09:41:31 CST 2005
Hi Karl:
Just to make sure..
Could you clarify as to whether you agree to
we make
CreateAgreementAsynch as an optional operation for CreateAgreement?
best Regards
Toshi
Karl Czajkowski wrote:
> On Feb 20, Karl Czajkowski loaded a tape reading:
> ...
>
>>Just based on the above summary, I would say that I am proposing we
>>drop the createAgreementGetResult operation in favor of an equivalent
>>binding-level behavior to reliably get (or "re-get" by polling) the
>>result of the existing createAgreement call in case it takes too long
>>for the baseline bindings. I am also proposing that we attempt to
>>incorporate his notion of a "reverse direction" createAgreementResult
>>operation (which I separated as acceptAgreement and rejectAgreement)
>>into a repair for the now underspecified and broken symmetric
>>agreement pattern.
>>
>
>
> Thanks to all who pointed out that the GGF site does indeed have an
> archive for the GRAAP-WG mailing list. :-)
>
> After reviewing the proposed changes, I think the above comments still
> stand. The only additional "async" interface proposal was for
> termination, and I would also suggest dropping that because it is my
> belief that there is no implication of long delays in this operation.
>
> Termination is an inherently asynchronous mechanism by which the
> client requests termination and finds out if his request is acceptable
> or not; he does not get some response synchronized to happen "after"
> termination but he should assume the resource is not to be accessed if
> the response is successful. This is a point that I think was argued
> extensively (and convincingly, to me) in the OGSI and WSRF work
> groups.
>
> I actually would question why we have a wsag:Terminate instead of just
> using the WS-ResourceLifetime mechanism. I cannot see what value it
> adds or what would be different about the semantics. The text in the
> Agreement Context section is hardly convincing on this point. :-(
> Is it supposed to I am afraid I must have been absent during the time
> when this was decided...
>
>
> karl
>
--
Toshiyuki Nakata
t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com
+81-44-431-7653
(NEC Internal 8-22-60210)
More information about the graap-wg
mailing list